Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 1 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill [Lords].

Motion to approve the Administration Committee's second report on record copies of Acts.

TUESDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Until 7 o'clock, Opposition Day [14th Allotted Day Second Part]; there will be a debate entitled "Planning, Greenfields and Brownfields: The Two Britains" on an Opposition motion.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.

WEDNESDAY 3 NOVEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Supplemental allocation of time motion relating to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.

THURSDAY 4 NOVEMBER—Progress on consideration of Lords Amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill.

FRIDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Debate on family friendly employment policies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

The House is grateful for next week's business. We note that the Leader of the House is unable to shed any light on business for the week after next, although the options must be narrowing. Nor can she give us the date of Prorogation.

There is a meeting of Finance Ministers to discuss the withholding tax. Will the Chancellor be coming to the House next week to make a statement assuring us that he will exercise his veto on that proposal?

On Northern Ireland, as Senator Mitchell has said that he plans to return on Sunday, might we have a statement from the Secretary of State on the outcome of the review talks?

The right hon. Lady will know that there is substantial pressure on the Government to complete their programme, with four major Bills still to come back to the House—the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, the Immigration and Asylum Bill, the Greater London Authority Bill and the House of Lords Bill. Two of those Bills are ready and two are not. The Bill that was ready first is not to be debated at all next week, whereas a Bill that has not completed its passage is down for debate. Is that not a perverse way to manage the business of the House?

The right hon. Lady announced as the business for Thursday consideration of Lords amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill. As 750 amendments have already been agreed to, with 35 still to be debated and more to be tabled, how long does she think the House will need to do the Bill justice? When it left us, it had 330 clauses and it now has 413, as well as five new schedules, including a new clause on the part-privatisation of the tube. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and other contenders for Mayor of London will want ample opportunity to debate that and all the other amendments. We certainly will and we need adequate time.

Finally, last week I asked the right hon. Lady to find time for debates on important issues, not least the royal commission on long-term care, and my right hon. and hon. Friends made other suggestions, as did Labour Members. No one asked for a debate on whether the public records should be printed on vellum or paper, but that is the debate that she is visiting on us on Monday. With all the pressures on Government business, the Government amendments to important Bills, and a guillotine on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, is that really the best use of this Chamber's time?

If the Chancellor believes that there is something that he needs to report to the House on the withholding tax, he will no doubt seek an opportunity to make a statement. But since the Government have said repeatedly and on every occasion when it has been discussed that we shall certainly veto any settlement that we regard as not being in Britain's interests, it is not clear to me that there is anything new to say.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Northern Ireland and the fact that Senator Mitchell has said that he may return on Sunday. Obviously, I know no more than he about where matters stand or what, if anything, is likely to be able to be reported to the House, but of course I give the undertaking that we will do everything we can to keep the House informed, as we always have, on this difficult and delicate issue.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to some of the legislation in the pipeline and said that were large numbers of amendments. I accept that but, sadly, it is not unprecedented in any way, shape or form. It is not a precedent that I care for and the Government are working hard gradually to overturn it. Unfortunately, there is nothing whatever unprecedented about large numbers of amendments being made at a late stage in the House of Lords and returning to this House towards the end of a Session.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the debate on long-term care. He knows that I have repeatedly told him that the Government will hold such a debate in the House, but when we are ready and able to do so. On the Administration Committee motion, he may not have called for such a debate, but the matter was objected to and so a decision is required.

Can my right hon. Friend please find time for a debate on education spending, from the primary sector through to the secondary? The allegation is that, although we inherited a system in which young people were much worse off, we have improved it. We need to put that on the record.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. A range of improvements have been made and he will know that we inherited a system in which, under the spending plans of the previous Government, there would have been a fall in real-terms spending of £38 per pupil. Thanks to the decisions made by the Government, there has been a real-terms spending increase of £73 per pupil. In his area, the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), recently opened one of the new initiatives—a homework club at the Norwich City ground. That is another of the developments that are bringing so much benefit to our education system. My hon. Friend is right to raise those matters, but I cannot undertake to find time for an extra debate, especially as we have just had Education and Employment questions.

I share the concern of the Conservative spokesman about the idiosyncratic sense of priorities for Monday when we clearly have important business to debate. In particular, will the right hon. Lady give us an absolute assurance that there will not be an allocation of time motion for the Greater London Authority Bill on Thursday? Given the many amendments that have been tabled so late, it would be outrageous if there were any attempt to push it through without proper regard to the concern in all parts of the House about important issues.

Will the right hon. Lady return to how the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill is to be handled on Wednesday? Can she give us an explicit assurance that there will not be an artificial cut-off time of 10 o'clock, midnight or whatever and that there will be a real attempt to understand that Members in all parts of the House want to debate important issues of principle properly? It would be outrageous if debates were cut short.

In her capacity of Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, is the right hon. Lady satisfied at the way in which those Bills have been crashed in during the last few days of this Session? Can we not try to find a better way to deal with them in future?

The House debating a variety of other matters and then turning to pressing legislation as it comes from the House of Lords has always been a feature of this time of year. I agree that there may be better ways of organising things and it is part of the work of the Modernisation Committee—and, indeed, of the Government—to try to move in that direction, but these things cannot be done overnight.

The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance about an allocation of time motion for the Greater London Authority Bill and mentioned the one on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. I tell him quite straightforwardly that the Government would prefer, on all those matters, for there to be no need for such a motion. He will recall that the Modernisation Committee recommended, to all parties in the House, that programme motions and programme motion agreements provided the best way of ensuring that we achieve proper discussion of all factors that are raised in a Bill and that need to be debated without anything being overlooked. That is how the Government always prefer to operate. It is for the usual channels to discuss how far it is possible in regard to these issues, and the same applies to the allocation of time motion relating to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is not the best way to run things. We will continue to try to improve the manner in which legislation is handled, so that the present system is not a feature of the future. However, he will know as well as any other Member that it has been a repeated feature of the handling of business here for all the 20-something years during which I have been—fleetingly—a Member of Parliament.

The Leader of the House will know of the case of my constituent Anita Froggatt, who had a breast removed in error at Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital owing to a mix-up of slides. The former Secretary of State for Health expressed extreme concern. Would it now be appropriate for the new Secretary of State to make a statement? A report was published on Wednesday, but it is inadequate in that it merely calls for the retraining of the doctor concerned in dealing with slides, and recommends that no further checks should be carried out on any of the slides with which that doctor dealt previously. A statement would allow us to discover the Government's opinion of the report.

I know of my hon. Friend's concern, and I know that he has pursued this matter for some time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is obviously aware of the report, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that he has not had much time in which to consider it. I cannot undertake to find time for a special statement now, but I will draw my hon. Friend's concern to my right hon. Friend's attention in case he can add anything to what is already on the record.

Can we have a wider debate on local authorities than that envisaged for next week? Does the Leader of the House realise that in the west midlands, Labour-controlled Coventry council is maintaining a ban on British beef in schools and old people's homes? If a debate is not possible, will the right hon. Lady at least urge the council to change its policy immediately?

I was not aware of the issue. I will simply say that, however much any of us may regret the aftermath and the knock-on consequences of the British beef crisis, I fear that blame does not rest with this side of the House.

I am sure that the Leader of the House has been following events in Kosovo since the KFOR occupation, and will therefore know that more than 100 Serbs and people from other minorities have been murdered or injured by the Kosovo Liberation Army and 100,000 have been ethnically cleansed. Yesterday, as a column of Serbs attempted to leave Kosovo—supposedly protected by NATO troops—they were set upon by Albanians who tried to burn them alive in their vehicles. At least five are missing. Given that we went to war with Yugoslavia to prevent such practices, will the Leader of the House ask the Government urgently for a debate on this serious situation?

As my hon. Friend will know, the Government share her concern. An explicit part of the remit of those who now seek to keep the peace in Kosovo was that there should be a fair and even-handed approach, and that we should try to preserve the safety and the human rights of all concerned. She will also know that that is not always an easy task. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special statement in the near future, but she may find an opportunity to raise the matter next week during Foreign Office questions.

Why is there to be a statement on the millennium bug today? The House rose early on Monday and yesterday. We are experiencing the biggest crisis in British agriculture since the 1930s, and we need every minute to discuss it today. Why could the millennium bug statement not have been made earlier?

There is nothing sinister about the decision to have the millennium bug statement today. It has long been scheduled. I cannot recall whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I last made a statement about this, but part of the undertaking given by the Government was that there would be a statement. It comes immediately after the publication of the findings of the national infrastructure forum, and a number of other events directly related to the millennium bug. The House rising early yesterday and on Monday is a matter for the whole House. If hon. Members do not wish to add their voices to debates, there is nothing that the Government can do to make them.

If the House is rising early, is it not true that the Opposition cannot be doing their job? When Labour was in opposition, the father of this lad here, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), and I would keep that lot up all night. It did not take very many of us to do that.

My right hon. Friend will recall that the Government allocated £2.5 billion for the sufferers of white finger and of bronchitis and other chest problems. Is she aware that paying out the compensation has been a very laborious process? It is taking a long time and needs to be speeded up. Can we have a statement from the appropriate Minister, and ensure that we get all those miners dealt with before the end of the year? Many of them are 70 or 80 years old and may not be around to pick up the compensation.

Will my right hon. Friend also have a word with the lawyers who have been given some of that £2.5 billion by the Government, and who are calling on those miners and miners' widows for an extra 5 or 10 per cent., although they have already been paid?

On my hon. Friend's first point, there was much in what he said, although I am not necessarily all that grateful to him for pointing it out to the Opposition. I have long thought that it would be good for them if we gave them tutorials, but I have resisted the temptation.

On the serious matter of those who have suffered because of their service in the mining industry, I know that £35 million of the money has already been released. Nevertheless, the Government and I share my hon. Friend's view that we should do more to try to speed up release of the allocated funds. From my own experience in the matter, I think that he was entirely right to identify the fact that, to some extent, the problems have been related to the legal handling of the case. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, who is responsible for those matters, is taking action to try to speed up payments, in exactly the way that my hon. Friend wishes.

Is the choice of paper, parchment or vellum in modernising Britain really the Government's priority for Monday? Given the crisis in farming—with two chicken abattoirs going bankrupt in the past 10 days, but hundreds of tonnes of chicken breast being imported to the United Kingdom from Thailand—is it really impossible to move the millennium bug statement to the empty day on Monday so that we might have a full debate on agriculture today?

I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated in his final remarks that he is aware that there is a debate on agriculture today; one might otherwise not have thought so. Today's agriculture debate has been initiated by the Government, and there will be plenty of time—should hon. Members choose to use it—to debate farming issues. We have had many opportunities to debate those issues in the House this week, and we shall continue to have such opportunities.

Will my right hon. Friend find time in the near future for a debate on the Government's recently announced plans to make NHS dentistry available to all who want it? Does she agree that that would provide a fine opportunity to reveal whether the Conservative party would delay, reverse or even destroy such an initiative with their recently announced policy of creeping privatisation of the NHS?

My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify the public concern about the availability of dental treatment, and particularly of NHS dental treatment. Dental treatment was one of the best examples of creeping privatisation under the previous Government. In many parts of the country, it has become hard for people to gain access to NHS care. I agree that it is very important to restore such access. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on it in the near future.

The right hon. Lady knows that I am always keen to assist her if she is in a spot of difficulty. May I therefore suggest that, to pad out Monday's business—which is currently composed of inconsequential and uncontroversial matters—she might find time for the appropriate Law Officers to make a statement to the House on why Dr. Anthony Glees, a distinguished researcher at Brunel university, has not been contacted by the Security Service, the police or the Crown Prosecution Service about the contents of the Stasi files that he found? They exposed in great detail the activities of Dr. Robin Pearson, Ms Fiona Houlding and others. The same material in America and Germany has been the basis of successful prosecutions, in one case sending someone to prison for a total of 18 years.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter, quite properly, in the House already. It seems to me that there is no need for a further statement on it. However, if he still wishes to raise it again, I remind him that he can do so at Home Office questions on Monday.

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the future of the branch network of Britain's clearing banks? She may be aware that, in my constituency, Barclays bank is to shut its crucial Gedling branch. Local people have not been consulted, and the closure is being presented as a fait accompli.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is a matter of great concern when people lose access to personal banking services. Many feel that such losses are not compensated for adequately by some of the developments in telebanking. Although I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter, my hon. Friend may find other opportunities to raise it—perhaps at the forthcoming Treasury questions.

This time last week, the Leader of the House announced that European Standing Committee C was to debate two European directives, on copyright and on e-commerce. Those directives were issued in connection with a Single Market Council meeting on 7 December. Her announcement gave members of the Committee precisely three and a half working days to read files on those directives that were each about 3 in thick. Committee members also had to try to get a briefing from the Library of the House on all the matters involved, but there was no time to arrange any consultation or advice sessions with interested parties outside the House.

Will the Leader of the House assure me that we will not suffer the same farce when it comes to the future scrutiny of crucial European legislation? Back Benchers must have adequate time to get properly briefed and to seek the views of the people affected by the directives, if we are to scrutinise the legislation properly.

I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, but may I gently point out that the problem is a consequence of the summer recess. The documents were not available to hon. Members earlier because the House was not sitting.

They could have been.

The right hon. Gentleman says that the documents could have been available, so I presume that a conscientious Back Bencher with an interest in the matters involved might have tried to get them from the Library earlier.

I repeat that I sympathise with the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. He will know that the Government have taken steps to try to improve the scrutiny of European business, and we will continue to work on that. However, he will also know that it is sometimes not possible to give hon. Members as much notice as we would like. We shall continue to strive to improve in that regard.

My request follows on from that made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). As we reach the end of breast cancer awareness month, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the very important issue of breast cancer? That would allow the House to examine the success of the Government's pilot initiatives in extending routine screening to women aged between 65 and 69.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a debate would provide a useful opportunity for the House to examine the Opposition's attitude to such important initiatives, especially as they are on record as stating that the Government are being reckless in giving an extra £40 billion to the NHS and education services?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. There was a half-day debate on health service matters in Opposition time this week, and the matter that she raised continues to be important. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate, but my hon. Friend has reminded me of a point that I should have drawn to the House's attention earlier. As we have agreed to experimental sittings in Westminster Hall, that is precisely the kind of debate that might find a place there when it is not easy to find time in the Chamber.

Would the right hon. Lady ask a Minister to make a statement on a very important issue? Among all the heat and light generated over the national health service, no mention has been made of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus. MRSA is a killer which has invaded virtually all our hospitals. It is extremely difficult to get rid of and it has enormous knock-on effects on staffing and the segregation of male and female beds. Whether or not people should be admitted to hospitals from nursing homes that have MRSA is a tremendous issue. Nothing seems ever to be said about it, and many trusts are going into deficit partly because of the costs incurred as a result of it.

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and entirely correct point. I share his concern. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the near future, but the House would sympathise if he looked to the opportunities available to hon. Members to raise important issues. MRSA is a good example of a specialist, non-party political issue that requires consideration in depth. There are, unfortunately, so many such issues that it is not easy to find time to debate them all.

In view of the ministerial statement earlier this week in response to the report of the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on radioactive waste management and the additional statement on means of complying with the Ospar convention, not to mention the important and controversial decisions pending on the Sellafield MOX plant and the discharge authorisation at Sellafield and the proposed partial privatisation of British Nuclear Fuels, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an overwhelming argument for a debate in Government time on all aspects of nuclear policy?

My hon. Friend raises a number of important, and to some degree related, issues, but I must tell him, as I have told others, that I cannot find Government time for a debate on those matters in the near future. I am confident that my hon. Friend will use his ingenuity and the procedures of the House to find other ways to raise those matters.

Is the Leader of the House aware that it is perfectly legal to allow 12-year-old children—minors—to be subjected to cosmetic body piercing without parental consent? During an earlier debate, her colleagues recognised the law's inadequacy and the need to strengthen it. However, they did not find time for new legislation. Will she use her good offices, if not to introduce legislation in this Session, to do so early in the next? That would put at rest the minds of many parents throughout the country.

That is one of the many worthy issues for which it is not easy to find legislative time. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman may press the matter on one of the hon. Members who wins a place in the private Members' ballot. I cannot undertake to introduce Government legislation in the near future, although I say that without pre-empting the Queen's Speech in any way.

Is the Leader of the House aware that two days after the House rose for the summer recess, but before the other place had risen, a substantial amendment to the air navigation order was laid before us? It will have swingeing bureaucratic and financial consequences on flying training, and is likely to increase costs by about 35 per cent. Bearing in mind that 45 per cent. of our pilots train themselves initially through private flying, will the right hon. Lady—who has a constituency interest in aviation as she represents the home of the Rolls-Royce aero engine company—allow the House time to debate an issue of serious concern to the flying training industry?

I freely confess, and hope that it will not be held against me, that I was not aware of that. I had other things on my mind two days after the House rose for the summer. I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed about the possible knock-on effects, and I undertake to draw the matter to the attention of my relevant ministerial colleague.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members have enjoyed watching the Rugby World cup in the past few weeks. Will she find time for a debate to ensure a fair deal for rugby supporters? I was able to attend the game last Saturday at Cardiff and there were clusters of empty seats at a game that was supposed to be a sell-out, thus denying many supporters the opportunity to go to the game. Next Thursday, there will be no trains back to London from Cardiff after the third and fourth place play-off and the minimum price of the tickets for that game will be £30, thus denying my constituents, especially young people, the opportunity to go to the Millennium stadium to see what a wonderful creation that is in Cardiff.

I was not aware that the travel difficulties would be as great as my hon. Friend has identified and can understand his concern about those who will suffer a disadvantage. I can only hope to draw the matter to the attention of the relevant authorities, since from what he said it is a combination of the activities of the rugby and the transport authorities that have led to those difficulties.

Does the right hon. Lady understand Opposition Members' concern about the fact that she has chosen today for a statement on the millennium bug when the House has risen early twice this week? There is growing concern in the countryside that we have not had sufficient time to debate agriculture. The simple fact is that the Opposition have chosen it as the subject of debate on three occasions this year. There are many concerns also about the wider implications for the countryside.

We had a debate on agriculture last week, but the hon. Gentleman was not here.

Is the Leader of the House also aware that in the past two days I have received letters from the Post Office to inform me of the closure of two rural post offices in my constituency, at Lea Bridge and Roston? It is the whole fabric of the countryside about which we are concerned as well as the agriculture industry.

I can only repeat that the Opposition have no cause to complain about the Government since we have volunteered the time for that debate. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has pointed out, there was a further opportunity to debate agriculture last week, when attendance on the Conservative Benches was unfortunately a little thin. Undoubtedly, there will be further opportunities to discuss a range of rural matters when the White Paper is published. I assure the hon. Gentleman that as we now have so many Labour Members who represent rural constituencies, the Government will be happy to find further opportunities for such debates.

Will my right hon. Friend try to find time to deal with the worrying problem of train overcrowding? I draw to her attention early-day motion 941.

[That this House notes the incident on the 10 a.m. Paddington to Swansea train on Saturday, 23rd October, when over 1,000 passengers boarded a train designed to carry fewer than 450 persons; notes that in the interests of passenger safety, the drivers refused to stop the train beyond Reading at Bristol and Newport station to take on more passengers; and calls upon the Government as a matter of urgency, to consider introducing a numeral limitation on the numbers of people who can travel on passenger trains.]

The situation on the train was so dangerous—it was designed to take only 428 people—that the driver and guard refused to stop at stations beyond Reading in case more passengers tried to board it. Dangerous overcrowding happens daily in my constituency and affects my commuters. I suspect that many other hon. Members on both sides of the House have a similar problem. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no numerical limit or maximum capacity for that form of public transport, unlike any other? We should tackle that problem.

I am aware that there is no limit on capacity for rail transport and can understand the concern that my hon. Friend expressed in the circumstances that he described. All aspects of rail safety are under review following the tragic accident on the line to Paddington. I strongly suggest that he should draw that aspect of safety to the attention of those conducting the review and encourage his constituents to do so, since I suspect, as he does, that it may be an aspect that is sometimes overlooked.

I implore the Leader of the House to reconsider the outrageous decision to guillotine the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. My constituents care greatly about that measure and it deserves sufficient debate. If the House had been over-busy this week and we had been dealing with a matter of substance on Monday, one might understand the Government's position, but the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Bill is nothing like as important as welfare reform. Please may we take the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill on Monday and give it at least a fair airing, because it is an important issue?

I remind the House that when the Bill previously came before the House three days were available for debate, although the Opposition had asked for only one. We have done our best to ensure that adequate time has been provided for those debates and we will continue to do so.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity yet to consider early-day motion 954?

[That this House notes with concern the proposal by Remploy to make 35 able-bodied employees compulsorily redundant at its Leeds orthotics factory; and regrets that the company's admirable no-redundancy policy for its disabled employees in not being applied to its able-bodied staff in this case.]

It concerns the 35 compulsory redundancies proposed at the Remploy factory in my Leeds constituency. The matter is of particular concern to those affected because although Remploy has a no redundancy policy for its disabled staff, it does not apply to able-bodied employees. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a ministerial statement on this issue?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. As he knows, the employment provided by Remploy is greatly valued, particularly by its staff with disabilities. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on this matter, but I am confident that my hon. Friend will use his ingenuity to find other ways in which to raise it.

Given that the Leader of the House has parliamentary time on her hands, squeezing important Bills such as the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill into the minimum time while on other days she sends her Labour colleagues on gardening leave, will she arrange for an early statement to be made on the impact on e-commerce of the matters referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)? Those changes from Brussels are likely to destroy the Government's strategy. We understand that the Lord Chancellor's Department, in supporting them, did not consult the Department of Trade and Industry or the Secretary of State there. We need to know what impact those directives from Brussels will have on e-commerce, particularly as business failures in this country have risen by 13 per cent. in the past three months and will rise further as a result of this additional meddling and red tape.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I, as a former Whip, never send anybody on gardening leave. The impact of the directive on e-commerce will have to be carefully considered. The Government do everything we can to ensure that the level of regulation, whether from Brussels or stemming from our internal activities, is kept under review and to a minimum, and to resist things that are not in our interests. We shall continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman may find an opportunity to raise the detail of the issue with DTI Ministers next week.

I am announcing today the results of the October monthly review of progress in tackling the millennium bug across government. The completed questionnaires will all be placed in the Libraries of the House and published on the internet as usual. The report follows those that Members have received in writing from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office and myself during the recess. I will also be reporting on preparedness across the national infrastructure, including key services delivered by the wider public sector. I have also informed the House of information published during the recess, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble).

I am pleased to report that very good progress has been made by Government Departments and agencies in tackling the bug since I last reported on the Floor of the House. The latest returns show that work on more than 99 per cent. of business-critical systems has now been completed. That means that systems have been fixed, tested and successfully put back into operation. However, work on a few business-critical systems still remains to be completed. Three organisations report some completion dates in November and December: the Ministry of Defence, the Office for National Statistics and the Planning Inspectorate.

The Ministry of Defence's very large and complex programme is close to completion. Ninety-eight per cent. of critical systems have been made compliant and all front-line systems are ready. Robust and comprehensive continuity plans have been developed and tested.

The Office for National Statistics has experienced a delay in the roll-out of new compliant registration software to register offices in England and Wales. The roll-out in England is due to finish by the end of this month, except for register offices in one county—Hampshire—which has requested a delay until November to fit in with its operational plans. The roll-out is not scheduled to finish until mid-November in Wales, but in all these cases, robust and tested business continuity plans are already in place.

The planning inspectorate has completed 90 per cent. of work on its business-critical systems and is on target to finish in November. Since autumn of last year we have been placing greater emphasis on the importance of business continuity plans and millennium operating regimes, which are essential safeguards against the impact of unforeseen bug failures and the other pressures of the millennium holiday period. The vast majority of Departments and agencies already have tested business continuity plans and millennium operating regimes in place. Ministerial colleagues have given me their personal assurances that all Departments and agencies will meet the deadline of the end of October for putting into place and testing the plans and millennium operating regimes.

As I foresaw in my September letter to Members, arrangements have been put in place so that the Government and the key infrastructure providers can share information over the millennium about how things are going and how any problems that emerge are being handled. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I announced the arrangements for the Government millennium centre, which will handle the flow of information over the critical period.

Exercise Herald, which took place on 26 October, tested how the information flows will work. This Cabinet Office-led exercise involved Government Departments and their agencies, Action 2000, the utilities, the Central Office of Information, the Government offices, and representatives of the media. A full analysis of the success of the exercise is not yet available, but preliminary indications are that a further exercise on a similar scale is unlikely to be required.

Independent assessments of the readiness of key parts of the national infrastructure have been undertaken as part of Action 2000's national infrastructure assessment programme. This programme has also included an assessment of business continuity plans and millennium operating regimes. The results of the latest assessments were announced at the national infrastructure forum on 21 October and are being published in a series of newspaper adverts in the national press.

I am pleased to report that almost all sectors of the national infrastructure have been rated as 100 per cent. "blue". That means that the independent assessors have not identified any risk of material disruption and that the public can expect a normal service. This includes key utilities services such as electricity, telecommunications, water and gas.

A number of essential and important services are delivered by the public sector. They, too, have been independently assessed as part of Action 2000's NIF programme. The benefit payments process has been blue since July. I am pleased to confirm that police services, fire brigades and NHS organisations are now all 100 per cent. blue. There has also been considerable progress in tackling the bug in local government. Local authorities in England, Scotland, and Wales are now 100 per cent. blue.

Financial institutions have been assessed as 98 per cent. blue. Seven medium-impact financial institutions are rated amber, but are expected to be blue by 12 November. Elsewhere, very few elements of amber remain, but further assessment work is under way in these sectors and all are expected to be 100 per cent. blue by the end of October.

No matter how much testing has been done, the possibility of failures occurring still remains. To address any remaining or unforeseen risks, and in line with best practice in the private sector, we have adopted a belt-and-braces approach to the issue, emphasising the need for all service providers to put proper and robust business continuity plans in place so that they can continue to deliver essential services, come what may.

There has been a vast amount of work in the UK to prepare for the millennium bug. We have subjected essential service providers to a rigorous programme of independent assessments—a process which gives us one of the most, if not the most, comprehensive and objective pictures of national readiness in the world. However, we have less information about other countries, so we cannot be confident that the rest of the world will be ready. We will therefore continue to prepare for potential disruption and make contingency plans to minimise any impact.

The Government will continue to lead by example and to be open and transparent on this issue. I will report further progress to the House in November and December. The United Kingdom remains one of the world leaders in tackling the millennium bug.

I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving me an advance copy of today's statement, and for the briefing with officials that she enabled me to hold earlier this month.

I welcome the fact that, in the latest report, blue status has been awarded in many private and public sector organisations. I am grateful for that information. We can all share the right hon. Lady's relief at that progress. However, some concerns remain, especially in the public sector.

When the right hon. Lady makes statements on this subject, she places in the Library some rather large tomes of detailed data. She will be encouraged to know that I have ploughed through the documents that were placed in the Library in September, although I have not had a chance to consult those for October, which she is placing in the Library today. My questions are thus based on the information available to me.

I noticed that the contingency plans for many parts of government—the business continuity plans—have yet to be tested. If alternative arrangements have been set up, it is imperative that they have at least been tested. I hope that the right hon. Lady will give us some updated information on progress on testing. In her statement, she announced the establishment of the Government millennium centre, which will be Cabinet Office led and will be the Government's hub for dealing with any problems that might arise. However, in the section on the Cabinet Office in the September report, I note that the business continuity plan for the Government's secure intranet has not yet been tested. If the internal intranet is to be at the hub of the Government's dissemination of information, it is important that it should be tested. I should be grateful for some updated information on that point.

In her statement to the House on 17 June, the right hon. Lady announced 30 September 1999 as the target date for NHS contingency plans. Will she confirm that that target was met, and that the systems and contingency plans for the NHS have been satisfactorily tested?

There is continuing concern about the testing of contingency plans in many parts of the public sector—for example, the Passport Agency. The right hon. Lady will know why I choose that example. That agency does not have a good track record, so the fact that it has yet to report the completion and testing of the work is worrying. Will she confirm that the Passport Agency completed its business continuity plan by the end of September and that the October report, which she is placing in the Library today, shows that the plan has been tested?

Even more important are those plans with a target date of the end of November and the end of December. The right hon. Lady nods—I am grateful for that acknowledgement that the matter is now of extremely grave concern, because of the time constraints. On 9 September 1998, when she made her quarterly statement on the subject, she stated:

"I am concerned that there has been some slippage: the completion dates of a small number of plans have moved by a quarter, mostly from December 1998 to March 1999. I am particularly concerned that a number of the target dates are close to the end of 1999."

I share the concerns that the right hon. Lady expressed a year ago—especially those about the overall capability of the Ministry of Defence to complete its work on time and, in particular, for that work to be tested. She stated that she was satisfied that critical systems—especially front-line systems—had met their targets. However, there seems to have been no overall improvement in the completion of work in the MOD to a target of the end of November or December—according to the graph in the right hon. Lady's documents in the Library, the MOD does not appear to have made any progress during the past year. If the work is to be completed by the end of December, it is self-evident that the test will not be made before the millennium—the millennium itself will be the test for the MOD. That is a matter of extreme concern.

I appreciate the fact that things such as nuclear weapons systems are not involved; I am referring to the MOD's overall capability. None the less, that Department is very important and we are looking to the right hon. Lady to advise us today as to what action she is taking to ensure that it not only completes its work by the end of December but puts its systems through the required testing in advance of that date.

The right hon. Lady referred to the state of preparedness in other countries. If the Cabinet Office is to act as the hub of Government at the millennium, it is important that we know exactly how the general public will receive information post-millennium. The Cabinet Office will presumably not be able to rely entirely on IT systems to disseminate that information. As it is only 64 days to the millennium, will the right hon. Lady outline today how the Government intend to put information in the public domain? For example, people may require travel advice, perhaps for health and safety reasons, for various parts of the world. How will our embassies and high commissions provide local information to the United Kingdom so that it may be analysed and passed on to the public?

The right hon. Lady promised in her statement to give two further personal statements before Christmas. The right hon. Lady will appreciate that, if we are scrutinise the situation properly, we must have access to as much information as possible before the House rises for Christmas. As the right hon. Lady has influence over the scheduling of business in the House, will she arrange for the December statement to be made in good time so that hon. Members can study it and ask relevant questions? It will be our last opportunity to do that before the millennium, and we will want to test the reassurances that the right hon. Lady has given today.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments and I will try to deal with most of the issues that she has raised.

Further testing is continuing on the Cabinet Office intranet. I am not certain whether it has been completed, so I shall write to the hon. Lady about the matter. I think she will find that NHS work and testing is now complete. The hon. Lady asked also about the Passport Agency. Its work is well under way and the Home Office announced recently that, after encountering some problems, the Passport Agency is now meeting its normal targets. Much of its work using older systems has dealt with post-2000 dates for a considerable period.

The hon. Lady raised concerns about some November and December completion dates. She will know that I share her concern in that regard, and have long done so. We have nagged Departments ruthlessly to bring those dates forward as far as they can. The hon. Lady will be aware—the available information will confirm this—that in all cases, not just the vast majority, we are talking about finalising testing and the independent assessment of contingency planning. A feature of our assessment process is that we are not prepared to sign off people until all the work is completed.

The hon. Lady expressed particular concern about the work of the MOD, which she said seemed not to have improved in the past year. That is certainly not the case: the MOD has improved enormously. I suppose that it appears, to some extent, to be in the same parish because some work remains to be completed. However, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, for example, have finished all work on their business-critical systems. Although a small amount of work on MOD programmes remains to be done, it is on systems that provide support—for example, logistics support and equipment maintenance. The vast majority of the remaining work is awaiting the completion of testing and assessment certification. Although I share the hon. Lady's regret that the work was not finished earlier, we are talking about the final stages of completion, not about work that has barely begun.

The hon. Lady also asked me about the international situation and how information will be collected and disseminated. As was announced yesterday, over the millennium period information will come to the information centre, primarily from Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts, which are charged with that responsibility. That information will be monitored. Media representatives will be in the information centre, so information that gives cause for concern can, if it is of considerable impact, be disseminated immediately. However, the Foreign Office will, of course, continue to update and assess the information that it has.

The information centre will remain open until 4 or 5 January at the least, because that is when many people will return to work and when some minor problems may be discovered. Similarly, as information comes in about other countries, we shall continue to update it. I anticipate that that will be done through the FCO website. If there is more that I can say about that, I shall write to the hon. Lady.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the issues that worries us is that some foreign countries do not have the same access to skilled support systems and may still be lagging behind, particularly in aviation? Will she assure me that the Civil Aviation Authority and the Foreign Office have carried out all possible checks to ensure that other nations' airlines that fly over London into Heathrow are absolutely certain that their systems are capable of dealing with any problems that. might arise?

My hon. Friend is entirely right to express that concern. That assessment and monitoring is continuing. I assure her that the air transport authorities, which are independent of Government, have made it absolutely clear that should there be any dubiety about the safety of aircraft or of airlines that would normally fly into London, their licences will be withdrawn. There will be no question of such aircraft being in United Kingdom airspace.

The Leader of the House will be aware of the problems that can be caused to the telecommunications network by peaks in demand, as we saw recently when the simple operation of selling tickets for an England v. Scotland game caused major disruption, and callers—whether Scottish or English—were left being offered glazing services instead of tickets. Will she assure the House that business continuity planning covers the possible cumulative effect of panic calling resulting from systems going down or simply from human concerns?

On a more parochial level, will the right hon. Lady endorse and support efforts by the Information Committee and Officers of the House to ensure that all Members upgrade their systems and their staff's systems so that we are all ready to serve our constituents from the morning of 1 January 2000?

I shall deal first with the hon. Gentleman's second question. I fear that I cannot take responsibility for all Members and their offices. However, the House authorities are on the case and we are doing everything that we can to ensure that the services provided by the House to Members will be available in the ordinary way. We certainly encourage all Members to be aware of the impact on their own activities.

On the hon. Gentleman's initial question, everyone has been very mindful—there has been much discussion and in-depth consideration—of the problems that could occur, including those that result from human behaviour and from peaks of demand. All the telecommunications agencies have prepared for exceptional demand. Equally, one feature of the Government's approach to the matter—I commend this to Members—is that we encourage human behaviour that is less likely to exacerbate the difficulties. For example, we urge everyone not to pick up the phone and test it to see whether it is working immediately after midnight. That is the one thing that might mean that it does not work when one wants it to. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that special work and special committees have dealt with the general operation of telecommunications and, in particular, emergency communications. They are addressing issues such as demand as well as any problems that might arise from the millennium bug.

Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House reassure me that, in the event of people suffering loss or damage because of a non-compliance fault, they will be compensated with speed and efficiency, so that the state will set an example of best practice to those who will undoubtedly be hurt by the private sector's non-compliance in some cases?

I cannot give my hon. Friend the blanket assurance that he seeks. We cannot undertake to remove completely the ordinary, day-to-day problems that occur in the natural course of life. That is one of the features of handling the issue. I shall give him a simple example that I always find quite compelling: every day, an average of 40,000 people are without electricity supply for about an hour. We clearly cannot undertake that such things will not happen over the millennium period. However, we can say that everything is being done to minimise the likelihood of any problems. Of course, if there are problems due to negligence in some way, that will have to be taken into consideration. Our aim is to avoid such difficulties.

Are there any instances in reports that the right hon. Lady has received from different Departments of the other dates about which we were all warned—9.9.99, the beginning of the financial year and the beginning of 1999—causing problems for Government computers? Has she any indication of the cost to all Departments of preparing for 2000? Have the Government provided additional funds for organisations such as the health service, which might have had to take money from patient care to deal with the problem?

I am indeed aware of such implications. There was some worry about 1 September and, for obvious reasons, about 9 September. There has been no adverse impact, that we can discover, on any of those dates. Indeed, there have been few confirmed reports of adverse impact even in the private sector or in other countries.

The anticipated cost to Departments has been pretty stable for some considerable time at around £420 million or £430 million. One of the reasons for that, which the hon. Gentleman will readily appreciate, is that, in the national health service, for example, to which he referred, work, albeit on a smallish scale, began as long ago as 1995. We are talking about work in many key areas that has not been confined to one critical period, but has been spread over time.

From my discussions with people in other countries, it is clear that, on international comparisons, the Government and the nation have so far done a superb job—about that there is no doubt.

One aspect that is worthy of further consideration, perhaps through the newly created millennium centre, is the possible occurrence of minor problems as a result of the coincidence of Y2K and, for example, bad weather conditions. That could present difficulties in areas such as the public utilities, which no reasonable person could foresee. Indeed, part of my electricity supply was off over last Christmas and new year, without a Y2K problem. Against that background, will my right hon. Friend ask the newly created millennium centre to draw up contingency plans in order to cope with such eventualities?

My hon. Friend is entirely right in his observations. He is right, too, to identify the substantial implications of the size and scale of the holiday, and, obviously, when it arises. If there is any impact, we may look back on it as being due primarily to bad weather, a flu epidemic or something of that kind, rather than to the millennium bug. I assure my hon. Friend that that has been a huge factor in all the thought, preparation and planning.

One of the reasons why the millennium centre was launched yesterday by the Home Secretary and myself is the range of services that are engaged in dealing with events over the millennium quite apart from the millennium bug. As an information centre, the millennium centre will be handling the flow of information on millennium events, not merely on millennium bug issues. We hope that that will mean a satisfactory flow of information to all who need to be kept informed.

Is the Leader of the House in a position to estimate, however roughly, the percentage of the work on this problem that has been taken up with checking and testing, and the percentage taken up with fixing bugs that have been found? In other words, what amount of the work has turned out to be purely precautionary, albeit a necessary precaution?

That is a very good question. I cannot make such an assessment at this moment. My gut feeling, from the very many reports to which I have listened, is that, on the whole, in most areas, fixing has been a fairly small fraction of the work, and that the great bulk of the work has been that of checking and identifying possible problems, contingency planning and so on. However, obviously no one could have known that without that checking and examination.

I told my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) about the operation of the millennium centre. Although the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) did not raise the matter with me, he may like to know that similar centres will operate in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I thank the President of the Council for her helpful statement, acknowledging in the process the hard work that is being done throughout the country to seek to ensure universal compliance by the due date. But, given that the right hon. Lady will recall from earlier exchanges in the House the widespread concern about the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry, a sponsoring Department, was a serious culprit and had a very dilatory approach to tackling those important matters, I wonder whether the right hon. Lady can give us an update today. Will she tell the House how the DTI has since performed—no doubt following a degree of nudging and encouragement from her—in absolute terms and relative to other Departments? Will she add something about the performance of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, about which there has been widespread concern for many months?

I would not call it nudging; it would be more accurate to call it beating over the head. I understand that all Government Departments, including the DTI and the ECGD, have completed their work, tested their contingency plans and are up to speed.

Last year the River Severn flooded, causing very serious damage, and this year it has already overflowed its banks. As I understand it, the countermeasure systems in the event of a possible failure have yet to be tested, and that is especially important for flood warning and the estimation of river levels. What contingency plans do the Government have?

I understand that that work also is on target. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who will reply to the agriculture debate, has some responsibility for those matters. Who knows—with the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity and Madam Speaker's good will, he may manage to pursue the matter.

I remind the right hon. Lady that when she laid the September report in the Library, no countermeasures had been identified by the ECGD. They were due to be completed in October. Therefore they have yet to be identified as complete, let alone tested. I should be grateful if the right hon. Lady would investigate that specifically.

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady. I have no briefing that suggests that there is any continuing problem with the ECGD, but she is right to raise the matter and I am grateful to her for doing so. I shall ensure that there is no continued problem.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I tried to give you notice via the Clerks of this point of order, which arises on a simple matter.

Can you confirm that, as "Erskine May" says in several places, if, during a debate in the House that has not exceeded its limited time—when there is still plenty of time for the debate to continue—a Member who has previously spoken rises to speak again, he can do so with the leave of the House?

The right hon. Gentleman is of course quite right in saying that a Member who wishes to make a second speech may do so by securing the leave of the House, with no single Member objecting. However, in my experience—I am sure that it is the experience of many Members—"Erskine May" is accurate in stating on page 375:

"It is very rare for a second speech to be allowed to a private Member other than the mover of a motion."

However, for all that, I know of the great interest that the right hon. Gentleman takes in such matters of procedure, and I am sorry that he was disappointed last evening. Having read Hansard carefully, I think that the Chair followed the current practice, whereby the House normally expects a Government winding-up speech to conclude a debate on a Government motion.

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It is most helpful to have had your ruling, but surely it is the House that makes the decision, not the Chair.

It is the House that makes the decision, but may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to last evening's Hansard? I see that the Government Whip asked the leave of the House to withdraw the motion. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his great experience of procedure, one voice raised objecting to the withdrawal of the motion could well have led to a different situation.

Very often, when we come to the end of a debate, members are confused about procedure. It is important that they should understand the courses of action that are open.

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I was a spectator last night at those enticing events. I confide in you—obviously, if one wants to keep a secret, one expresses it in the House of Commons—that it was a source of misery to me, as I was settling down, awaiting a couple of hours of outstanding speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), that he did not have the opportunity to deliver that speech.

As you know, Madam Speaker, I am a new Member, and I seek clarification and guidance. Are you telling the House that if there had been a single objection to the request of the Government Whip to withdraw the motion, I would have had the succulent pleasure of listening to my right hon. Friend for a couple of hours?

Indeed you would.

May I make it quite clear that I had no intention of speaking for two hours?

I inform the House that Back-Bench speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.

In little more than a week, agriculture has been the focus of two debates in the House. That is right. It demonstrates the importance that the House attaches to these matters.

Today, I want to set out how the Government are helping the industry to prepare for the future by providing special measures for the short term, and by providing a framework for an efficient, forward-looking and modernised industry for the longer term.

Before I deal with that, I shall say something about the French beef ban and the Government's response. As well as being a clear breach of European Union law, the French import ban has hindered the resumption of our beef exports. The Government have been, at both official and ministerial level, in regular contact with the European Commission and the French Government, to let them know just how seriously we take the matter and to bring the problem to a swift resolution.

The European Union Scientific Steering Committee is meeting today to consider France's evidence for its continued import ban. I have looked at the evidence, and it contains nothing not already known to us or to the Commission. I therefore expect the steering committee to dismiss the French evidence.

The Prime Minister has made it clear to the French Prime Minister this week that he expects nothing less than the immediate lifting of the ban on British beef, and I have made exactly the same thing clear to my counterpart as well. If the French fail to lift their ban, the Government will call upon the European Commission to take legal action at once.

We have made it clear that we have the science on our side, the law on our side and the Commission on our side. The French are isolated. We have played by the rules and fully expect to achieve the outcome that will benefit farmers and the entire beef industry.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. There have been press reports that the French Agriculture Minister has cancelled his meeting with the Minister. Is that meeting now to take place?

A routine bilateral meeting was arranged for Saturday which, I regret, the French Agriculture Minister has had to cancel because the French Prime Minister has asked him to accompany him on another overseas visit. [Interruption.] For Conservative Members to jeer at the French Government will not help. These are routine bilaterals, which often have to be rearranged at the last minute because of pressures on Ministers, and I take no offence at that. Our offices are in close contact.

The important contact between my office and others involved is not that with the French Government directly but that with the EU Commission. We should remember that France's quarrel is not directly with the UK—although, of course, we are the people most affected by it—but with the Commission. The French Government are defying an EU decision. The ban has already been lifted by 13 member states, a 14th, Germany, is in the process of doing so, and one member state, France, is not complying with what was a collective agreement.

Does not the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) merely demonstrate the French Government's arrogance? They can have no more important problem than one involving the beef trade between two major EU countries. How much longer will the Government stand by and do nothing about a trade in beef fed with sewage—something that is illegal under European law—and about a ban on British beef that has nothing wrong with it and that the committee will not be able to find anything wrong with today? Will it take months or years in the European Court? What are our farmers supposed to do?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I can tell him from personal experience that Agriculture Ministers have to deal with many issues, some quite difficult, at the same time, so I make no complaint about the bilateral having to be rearranged. The hon. Gentleman asks what the British Government are doing. I have just set that out. The important next step is the meeting that is taking place today of the scientific advisers to the Commission, to which the French Government will respond and on which the Commission will then act.

Months and months.

The hon. Gentleman says months and months, but I say November. It is not right for the hon. Gentleman to say that the matter will drag on. We are looking for a speedy resolution and, after today's meeting, we expect the Commission to stand in our corner.

That brings me to the next matter to which I wanted to refer. We are similarly relying on the science and the law in respect of the use of sewage sludge in French animal feed.

rose—

Let me finish my point and then I shall give way.

I have received and published the clear and considered advice of the Joint Food Standards and Safety Group, advice which has been endorsed by the chairs of the three relevant independent advisory committees. The advice is that, although

"the practice of adding sewage sludge to animal feed is repugnant to consumers and illegal under Community law"

there is

"no immediate public health risk and therefore no basis for seeking a ban of French products at either a Community level or unilaterally".

Therefore it would be wrong, as well as illegal under EU law, to impose an import ban on French livestock products.

rose—

I intend to move on to discuss the other important issues that affect agriculture. If hon. Members wish to intervene on the French attitude to our beef exports and sewage sludge, I shall take interventions now, but not later, because the debate is scheduled to discuss the important but wider problems of EU agriculture.

Did I understand the Minister to say that proceedings will be resolved by next month? If it is, what penalties does he envisage will be extracted from the French for breach?

We expect a speedy response from the Commission to the scientific evidence, and it is that that I expect in November. Of course I would prefer a quick and decisive outcome, but I do not want one that sets aside our clear rights in this matter. We have the right to offer our perfectly safe beef for sale in France.

One learns that it is the French intention to attend the meeting in Brussels and give way on the understanding that certain further restrictions are placed on British beef. If that is the case—it seems absolutely unreasonable to me—what steps are the Government preparing to take to deal with that problem?

Some people have been suggesting that I should ring the French Minister and cut a deal with him. I cannot do that. The date-based export scheme is a European Union scheme that has been agreed within the EU. The Commission is the custodian of it. It is not for me to enter into separate bilateral negotiations, nor can I. I am keeping very close to the Commission, and I had two long discussions with Commissioner Byrne yesterday. I am expecting to have further discussions either today or tomorrow, but I cannot go down the route that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be inviting me to take.

rose—

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), and will take all the interventions, but then the House will want to move on.

Is not the Minister's assurance on sewage sludge, which he has repeated, dependent on it receiving adequate heat treatment? Can he tell the House that such treatment is being given? If it is not, his assurance means nothing.

I have put the full advice that I have received in the Library. It deals with the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised and I refer him to it so that he can see for himself what advice I have been given and why I am acting on it.

Is not the key point of the Government's position that we are acting in accordance with law and scientific advice? Would it not be the height of folly to act beyond, or in contravention of, scientific advice, as we are being urged to do by Conservative Members, and then expect the French to abide by the scientific advice that we want them to abide by?

My hon. Friend is right. We have the law and the science on our side, and I am keeping it that way.

Why did the Government allow the French to give new evidence to the Commission? Surely the French broke the law. The law is set out, so why is another member country allowed to open the whole issue up again and delay matters, as France is doing?

The French are in breach of the law. Their explanation is that they have new evidence. That claim has to be examined before it can be set to one side. That is happening now. I have looked at what they claim to be new evidence. There is nothing new there, and I confidently expect that to be the outcome of the scientific examination that is taking place today and tomorrow.

I am most grateful to the Minister, who is being very courteous and answering questions directly. I congratulate him on his personal stand of not eating French food while the problem continues. That is very brave of him—perhaps braver than he expected.

If one of my farmers in Dorset decided to start feeding an animal sewage sludge and/or bonemeal and/or hormones, would the Minister's Department be able to prevent that tainted meat from getting into the food chain so that my constituents could not eat it? If it could do so, why can he not do the same to the French meat that is being produced in such a way?

We have strict controls in this country, most of which we want and some of which we have because of our special circumstances regarding BSE. In my extensive discussions with the industry, I have not met a farmer who wants to feed his livestock contaminated animal feed. British farmers want a premium in the marketplace for the quality-assured schemes that we operate. I think that the hon. Gentleman wants that as well, so I invite him to make common cause with me in supporting the Meat and Livestock Commission's assured British meat schemes.

We all hope that the beef issue can be resolved quickly, but I bring the Minister back to the meat and bonemeal question. Surely if there is a meat and bonemeal ban for our own farmers, particularly in the pig and poultry sectors, the same should apply across the entire EU. The Minister shakes his head, but what is the justification for having the ban in Britain, but not in the rest of Europe? Does not the sewage sludge issue, which I first raised with the Prime Minister in June and which has come up again during the past few days, present a golden opportunity for imposing on the production of pork on the continent the same standards that we have in this country? Will the Minister think again about that? Whatever the president of the National Farmers Union says about a trade war, the pig and poultry farmers of this country want a ban on meat and bonemeal-fed products.

It is not a golden opportunity if it is not well founded in law, and the professional advice that I have received is very clear. As for the broader question of meat and bonemeal, the pig sector has a genuine grievance, with which I intend to deal later in my speech. I have something quite extensive to say, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me until then.

I thank the Minister for giving way yet again. Does he realise that maintaining the ban on beef on the bone hopelessly undermines his negotiating stance in relation to the French? Backed up by idiotic Labour councils such as Coventry council, which has banned all beef products, it enabled the agricultural councillor at the French embassy, Mr. Jean-Jacques Benazit, to write to this week's edition of the Farmers Guardian invoking the precautionary principle because beef on the bone is banned in this country.

I shall have something to say about local authorities and beef later. As for a link between the ban on beef on the bone—which is at the extreme end of the precautionary measures in this country—and the date-based export scheme, no such link exists, because the date-based scheme relates to deboned beef. There is no question of any beef on the bone going into the export market through the scheme.

I can confirm again that I have received advice from the United Kingdom's chief medical officer, Professor Donaldson, that it would be safe to lift the ban for the purpose of retail sales, including sales through catering outlets. I have made it clear to the House repeatedly that I want to lift the ban as soon as I can, but I want to do so in an orderly way throughout the United Kingdom. That will require the consent of the devolved authorities that have competence in Scotland and Wales. I hope to be able to obtain their consent soon, and in any event before Christmas.

rose—

rose—

I will give way to the hon. Members for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). After that, given the imposition of a 10-minute limit for speeches, I will make some progress in order to protect the time allowed to other Members.

I am grateful to the Minister, who has behaved with typical courtesy. Does he appreciate, however, that Conservative Members and many of our constituents are concerned with the timetable question? The Minister lifted our hearts when he spoke of November, but if what he is actually saying is that he has no means of protecting the industry against months, perhaps years, of legal wrangling, by the time that is resolved, many of our constituents will be out of agricultural production, and the nature of our countryside will have changed. Has the Minister nothing to say about dealing with that problem?